Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-17.txt - C_REC#9 464XLAT

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

On 13/02/2015 22:36, Metzler, Dan J wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: v6ops
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
>> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 10:59 AM To:
>> [e-mail]; Heatley, Nick Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action:
>> draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-17.txt - C_REC#9 464XLAT
>>
> <snip/>
>>
>>> Some operators are seeing CLAT as critical because they don't
>>> want to have a service disruption compared to IPv4 when
>>> IPv6-only connectivity is provided to their customers.
>>
>> I agree about the criticality of IPv4 apps when IPv6-only
>> connectivity is in place.
>>
>> But why should there be IPv6-only connectivity in place today for
>> the masses?
>
> Because whether it exists today, or not, that's the goal we are
> working toward.  It's far too late to be designing things based on
> some assumption that IPv6-only connectivity doesn't have to actually
> work anyway.  The ultimate goal is IPv6-only connectivity for the
> masses, and if we make no other assumptions, we ought to be able to
> start with the assumption that at least works to all internet
> connected IPv6 endpoints.

Yes, I agree with the goal.  But I think it is too early to think
IPv6-only for the masses.

I talk to a number of professional deployers and the majority is still
questioning the necessity of IPv6.

>> Nobody but some ultra-geek do this IPv6-only today.
>
> Ouch!

Sorry, didnt mean to hurt anyone's feelings.  Geek is said with respect.

One must be ultra-geek to turn off her IPv4 stack.  Have you tried?

>> Even if the operator's network is IPv6 only, it should have means
>> to translate between v4 and v6 at its edges, such as to show pure
>> IPv4 and pure IPv6 t user.
>>
>
> I think we should stay away from assumptions like this.

But 464xlat/clat is already doing translation. Except that it does
translation only on one edge and on the terminal.  It should have done
translation on both edges and let the terminal free of not implementing
CLAT.

> If no one is going to mandate that all ISPs MUST provide IPv6
> connectivity, (and that hasn't happened yet), then it doesn't seem
> like we can make assumptions about where the translation needs to
> happen.

I agree with you, IPv6 must be recommended.  But there several types in 
which to bring IPv6 in.  Some are smoother than others.

In the case I struggle with, in the current situation (CLAT required on 
the terminal), I will be forced to recommend and use an IPv4-only APN 
type, and leave IPv6 for a few years later.

The end users will not even have a chance to see an RA coming from the 
network and their Windows end-systems naturally self-configure an address.

The end user does not want IPv6, the backend system does not want to 
provide IPv6.  Only the cellular system imposes IPv6.

Alex

>
> <snip/>
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Dan (part time ultra-geek I guess)
>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
>>  [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops


---
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
http://www.avast.com